[ad_1]
WOW. SO MUCH REVEALED BY FIRST VICTIM WITNESS IN MAXWELL EPSTEIN TRIAL AND WHY IT’S SO IMPORTANT
by Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. – zero hyperbole and 100% facts in plain English about what’s going on with this administration and the law (please feel free to share)
For those just joining us we’re going through the transcripts of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, however the thing is – and many people seem to not realize this – the trial transcripts reveal *so much* about Epstein and his actions as well. And these transcripts are the closest we will ever come to having Epstein himself on trial because, well, he either killed himself, or was killed, *before* he could stand trial.
Think about that – Epstein was in prison *awaiting* trial – it’s entirely plausible that someone had him taken out before he could stand trial – before that trial would reveal so many things that so many people want to keep hidden. I am the furthest thing from a conspiracy theorist, but it’s very clear that he was an asset, and when assets are compromised they know they either need to take themselves out or they will be taken out.
By our going through these transcripts, gleaning what we can, *this* is one way to honour the victims – to try to give them at least some modicum of justice.
And so I am explaining these transcripts and going through them with you, one day at a time – all 22 days of the trial and sentencing (with the actual transcripts included for Notes from the Front members).
We are on day 3 of the trial and transcript, but first I want talk about what happened in the second half of day 2, because that is when the first victim takes the stand. (Notes from the Front members, you received the day 2 trial transcript yesterday – if you missed that you can join now and get access to the previous transcripts.)
You will remember that there was a victim referred to by the pseudonym ‘Jane’. And now Jane has taken the stand.
Here is a some of Jane’s initial testimony:
—
Q. Now, Jane, I want to ask you, did there come a time in your life when you met someone named Jeffrey Epstein?
A. Yes.
Q. What year was that?
A. 1994.
Q. Did there come a time in your life when you had sexual contact with Jeffrey Epstein?
A. Yes.
Q. How old were you when that first happened?
A. Fourteen years old.
Q. Did that happen once or more than once when you were 14 years old?
A. More than once.
Q. Was there ever anyone else in the room with you when you had sexual contact with Jeffrey Epstein when you were 14 years old?
A. Yes.
Q. Who was most frequently in the room when you had sexual contact with Jeffrey Epstein when you were 14 years old?
A. Ghislaine Maxwell.
—
Now, I want to remind you that *I* know, with 99% certainty (even more certain than I was yesterday as I have done further research) who ‘Jane’ is and, again, I am not going to share that publicly. And knowing who it is makes it all the more real :~( because I can actually visualize her, Epstein, and Maxwell. :~(
Jane goes into a *lot* more in her day 2 testimony, including descriptions of orgies, which I will not repeat here. For those of you who have yesterday’s transcript, Jane’s testimony starts on page 158.
Ok, on to day 3.
Day 3 picks up with Jane where day 2 left off, after some housekeeping/administrative discussion between Judge Nathan and the attorneys.
Then Jane comes back to the stand. The attorneys take her through her time at Interlochen Center for the Arts. This seems to be one of Epstein and Maxwell’s prime hunting spots.
Once again the defense takes the angle of attacking Jane’s credibility, and also trying to get her to say that everything bad that happened was Epstein, although from the above-quoted day 2 testimony you can see very clearly just how involved Maxwell was.
And you can understand why so few victims want to testify.
You will also notice that in several places the defense refers to FBI 302s (remember those are the written records of statements given to the FBI by people who have witnessed or are victims of a crime). As I have told you elsewhere, people can, and do, say anything in those statements, including things that are not (and could not possibly be) true – *but* they are also essentially under oath when they give those statements, and so they are useful for impeaching a witness on the stand. BUT you also have to remember that 302s are what the witness said orally to the FBI agent, and then the agent is taking it down, and the agent is transcribing it. So the agent’s narrative as recorded in the 302 can be *wrong*. Not generally, and not broadly, but as it comes to specifics, which you will see in this transcript.
And you will *love* how the Judge takes the defense attorney to task for trying to introduce impeachment evidence from documents that *haven’t been submitted as evidence” by just reading them, complaining that Jane’s testimony “has changed like a hundred thousand times”. At the end of that exchange Judge Nathan simply closes that discussion with “We’re in vigorous disagreement.” Fortunately, what the Judge says goes. :~)
You’ll also love the ‘cleanup’ that the prosecution’s attorney that day, Ms. Moe, does after the defense’s cross-examination is done (this is known as re-direct), which includes:
—
Q. And you were asked about whether in your meetings with the government you were asked about the questions that I was going to ask you on direct examination. Do you remember being asked about that?
A. Yeah.
Q. Did I or any other prosecutor ever tell you what to say on the witness stand at this trial?
A. No.
Q. What did we tell you to do?
A. Just tell the truth.
Q. Has anyone told you what to say at this trial?
A. No.
And…
Q. I want to ask you about your meetings with the government. When you met with the FBI and the government, did you cover every detail of your entire relationship with Maxwell and Epstein in every meeting with the government, or did you talk about different topics at different times at different meetings?
A. Different topics, different times, different meetings.
Q. Did you take any notes during the meetings?
A. No.
Q. Who took the notes?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Did you have any opportunity to review any notes or reports of any meetings for accuracy?
A. No.
—
Hopefully you see how that interchange plays into the defense trying to impeach Jane with 302s.
But here is a real bombshell:
The defense was trying to make something of the fact that Jane had spoken with a reporter and only mentioned Epstein, not Maxwell.
On redirect Ms. Moe asked Jane about this:
—
Q. When you spoke with that reporter, did that reporter threaten to reveal your identity publicly if you wouldn’t speak with him?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that why you spoke with the reporter?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you make an agreement with the reporter in order to make sure your identity wasn’t revealed?
A. Yes.
Q. And what was that agreement?
A. The agreement was to briefly discuss only how I had met Jeffrey Epstein.
Q. And in exchange for doing that, what did the reporter agree to do?
A. He promised to keep my name anonymous.
—
DISGUSTING!!!
There’s trying to get a story – and then there’s threatening to ruin someone’s life. :~(
Notes from the Front members: the transcript is in your inbox now!
If you’re not a Notes from the Front member, for just $5 a month you can get all of my posts *and* the documents sent directly to you! And you’ll be helping keep me in coffee so that I can continue researching and reporting for you! :~) Join here now:
https://annepmitchell.substack.com/p/wow-so-much-revealed-by-first-victim
Not a Notes member and don’t want to spend $5? Join for free! (you just won’t get the original documents or access to our private chat):
https://notesfromthefront.fyi
New by popular demand: Many of you have asked how you can support my work without subscribing to my Substack (thank you for asking! ❤️), here’s how: https://www.annepmitchell.com/buy-anne-a-coffee/
P.S. If you actually read all the way to the bottom please leave a comment that includes the word “reporter”. It will show me that my efforts aren’t in vain and that people actually *do* read these things, and it will drive those who just skim crazy wondering just why everyone is talking about a reporter! ;~)
[ad_2]
Source